9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... succeeding years. CIT(A) has noted that the assessee had submitted its calculation to the ITSC of unaccounted receipts basis documents found relating to A.Y. 2014-15 since they represented unaccounted receipts for 10 months. The percentage so worked out was applied to the rest of the years irrespective of the fact that documents relating to the whole of the said years was impounded or not. ITSC found the said declaration of the assessee, as correct and in order for all the years and in fact found it to be more than the figures as worked out by the Department. Settlement Commission has also accepted the assessee s claim of expenses @ 29% of the receipts for all the years. The Department, it has been stated at bar, has accepted the order of the ITSC estimating unaccounted receipts for the preceding and succeeding years . ITSC, accordingly, passed its order on the issue adopting and accepting the best possible method of estimating the unaccounted income, based on the documents found during survey revealing the unaccounted receipts. The same set of documents pertaining to the impugned year, form the basis of addition made in the impugned year. The facts and circumstances leadi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlapping figures and found the same as duly reflected in the books of the assessee, thus holding that no addition is called for on the basis of these two documents. We do not find any merit in the plea of the Revenue that the two documents were different since the facts as we have noted above do not demonstrate anything to arrive at this finding and the difference referred to by the Revenue relating to an entry related to Ramdarbar is too inconsequential to adversely effect the otherwise logical inference that the two documents contained overlapping data - We uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of unaccounted ESIC receipts - Decided against revenue. Unaccounted receipts as per documents showing income received from KUC read as Kidney and Uro Centre a known hospital in Chandigarh sector-46 - CIT(A) deleted the same finding merit in the contention of the assessee that all receipts as reflected in the said documents stood duly accounted for in its books and further considering the order of the ITSC on identical issue in the preceding and succeeding year - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee had demonstrated from its books of accounts that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 relating to assessment year 2013-14, passed u/s 250(6) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). 2. The brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is running a Radio Diagnostic Centre in Sector 16 D, Chandigarh. The assessee is a Radiologist and in her centre various machines like USG Scan, C7 Scan and X-Ray are installed. For the impugned year, return declaring income of ₹ 39,97,350/- was filed by the assessee. A survey u/s 133A of the Act had been conducted on the centre on 04.03.2014 and a large number of documents were impounded. Thereafter assessment u/s 144 of the Act was completed at the total income of ₹ 4,37,41,670/- after making addition on the basis of various documents impounded during survey. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who noted that the assessee had filed an application before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) for the preceding years i.e. 2010-11 to 2012-13 and succeeding year 2014-15 which had been decided by the Hon'ble ITSC vide order dated 23.11.2015 passed u/s 245D(4) of the Act. He noted that most of the issues that were discussed in the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n receipts under the head ESIC without appreciating the facts that the entries mentioned in impounded document A-16 for ₹ 852741/- (for April 2012 to Dec. 2012} A-20 for ₹ 845638/- (for April 2012 to Dec. 2012) arc altogether different as it can be seen from the AO's order that in the document A-16 for the month of Oct. 2012 there is receipt amount of Rs,5198 as ESIC Ramdarbar bills but in the document A-20, receipt of amount of ₹ 845638/- is from ESIC Baddi . 5. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 129255/- made by the AO on account of unaccounted receipts from Kidney Uro Centre, by not rightly interpreting the observations made by the Income Tax Settlement Commission on this issue for the AYs. 2011-12, 2012-13 2014-15 wherein the Ronnie Income Tax Settlement Commission had observed that the extrapolation exercise carried out by the Department appears to be on the right line. Further it is also a matter of fact that the assessee in the AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 had offered 2 lac in each assessment year totaling to ₹ 6 lac as additional income. 5.1 Without prejudice to the ground No. 5 mentioned abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sters in which daily cash receipts were recorded alongwith the name of the patient and the description of the diagnostic test. The summarized total of these receipts in the three documents is as under: Period Total (in Rs.) A-22 Nov. 2012 61,32,820/- A-25 Dec. 2012 42,16,260/- A-24 Jan. 2013 36,65,820/- Total 1,40,14,900/- 7.1 The three months cash was projected by the AO to arrive at the annual gross receipts of ₹ 5,60,59,600/-. The Assessing Officer compared the projected receipts with the actual receipts recorded in the Audit Report submitted. As per the books the assessee had shown total cash receipts under the head professional receipts at ₹ 2,53,87,697/-. The Assessing Officer found that the professional receipts were not fully recorded in the final accounts of the assessee and the difference between the extrapolated receipt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratio as decided by Hon'ble ITSC as per para 8.3 page no 14 that the total unaccounted cash receipts were 46%. Total cash receipts for the balance period of nine months has to be taken into consideration excluding Nov 2012, Dec 2012 and Jan 2013 for which no record was impounded. The cash receipts as per books of accounts for the period of nine months were ₹ 1 92,29,592/- and the same is extrapolated by 54% on the basis of seized material and the total cash receipts works to ₹ 3,56,09,356/-(19229592/54%). Total extrapolated receipts for 9 months ₹ 3,56,09,356/- Less cash Receipts as per books of Accounts ₹ 1.92.29.592/- Balance undisclosed receipts for 9 months for F.Y. 12-13 ₹ 1.63.79.764/- C) Total undisclosed receipts (B+C) = 56.58,262+1,63,79.764 ₹ 2,20,38.026/- Less 29% on account of cash expenses from Gross receipts as per as per para 8.3.3 page no 15 ₹ 1,37,53,750/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unaccounted receipts for the impugned year. 14. We therefore do not find any merit in the impugned grounds 2 (a-d) raised by the Department before us and dismiss the same. 15. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue relates to the issue of addition made by the AO on account of receipts on which commission was paid by the assessee which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). 16. Brief facts relating to the issue are that during the survey, documents A-53, A-54, A-55 were impounded. These documents contained details of payments made to doctors as commission. This fact was confirmed by the assessee in her recorded statement during survey. She also indicated that rate of commission varied from 10-40%. The Assessing Officer worked out the total commission paid to various doctors at ₹ 6,54,420/-. The Assessing Officer further made post survey inquiries and found out that the commission was paid to referring doctors at the rate of 10% of the total charges of the diagnostic tests prescribed. Working backwards the Assessing Office, estimated the receipts of the appellant on the commission paid and projected the total unaccounted receipts of the assessee at ₹ 65,44,200/- based o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eipts under the head ESIC which stood deleted by the CIT(A). 21. The facts relating to the issue are that the addition had been made on the basis of impounded documents A-16 and A-20, the total of which was worked out at ₹ 22,02,184/- . The amount of ₹ 12,07,476/- was reflected in the Profit Loss Account of the assessee. The AO accordingly added the difference amounting to ₹ 9,94,760/- to the income of the assessee. 22. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the same holding at paras 9.2 to 9.2.1 as under: 9.2. Held: I have perused the order of the Assessing Officer and examined the reply of the appellant. On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that there is a double taxation. In the table on page 52 of 56 of the assessment order a summarized total of A-16 and A-20, in the description, it is clear that there is an overlap period. The summarized total in A-16 is with respect to the receipts from April 2012 to February 2013. The summarized total of A-20 is a lump sum total for two periods April 2012 to Dec. 2012 and April 2013 to Dec. 2013. The Assessing Officer has made an average for a months and 3 months respectively. The details are summarized as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77315 77315 A-16 Jul-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 108059 108059 A-16 Aug-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 93806 93806 A-16 Sep-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 119245 19245 A-16 Oct-12 ESIC RAMDARBAR BILLS 5198 5198 A-16 Oct-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 99732 99732 A-16 Nov-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 95913 95913 A-16 De ;-12 ESIC BILLS BADDI 120561 120561 A-16 Jan-13 ESIC BILLS BADDI 113789 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove do not demonstrate anything to arrive at this finding and the difference referred to by the Revenue relating to an entry related to Ramdarbar is too inconsequential to adversely effect the otherwise logical inference that the two documents contained overlapping data. 28. In view of the above we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of unaccounted ESIC receipts amounting to ₹ 9,94,760/- Ground of appeal No.4 of the Revenue is therefore dismissed. 29. Ground Nos.5 5.1 raised by the assessee relates to the issue of addition made of ₹ 1,29,255/- on account of unaccounted receipts as per documents A-14 A-21 showing income received from KUC read as Kidney and Uro Centre a known hospital in Chandigarh sector-46. 30. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the same finding merit in the contention of the assessee that all receipts as reflected in the said documents stood duly accounted for in its books and further considering the order of the ITSC on identical issue in the preceding and succeeding year holding as under: 11.1 Per Contra: The appellant has made the following observation with respect to this amount: i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejoinder and our earlier submission. The Department has not been able to point out cash receipts outside the books of accounts, if any, in spite of this, we hereby make a lump-sum offer of ₹ 6 lakh on account of the above and, thus, the total offer is as under:- AY Offer now made on account of 3 hospitals (Amount in Rs.) 2010-11 Nil 2011-12 2,00,000/- 2012-13 2,00,000/- 2014-15 2,00,000/- Total 6,00,000/- 14.3.2 in view of the above facts and circumstances, the above offer is being made in the spirit of settlement arid to avoid any protracted proceedings and the applicant has cooperated with the Settlement Commission during the course of various hearing and it is very humbly requested that the settlement be made by including the above said additional offer and oblige 14.3.3 Summing up, the applicant has made this additional offer of additional income in respect of (he thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.1 Per Contra: In her reply on 11.01.2016, the appellant has states as under:- 25. Ground No. 10 That the Ld. Assessing Officer has made also erred in making the addition of ₹ 6,43.563/- on account of 'Mukat Hospital' as per para 17.2 of his order. i. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of ₹ 6,43,563/~ and in this respect, it is submitted that we are submitting herewith a chart from where if is proved that the first three figures are not relatable to the year under consideration and all the other figures are duly recorded in the books of accounts and, therefore, no addition is liable to be made. 12.1.1. In the table filed with the reply, the appellant has made following observation:- ANNEXURE-A. 14 23 (MUKUT HOSPITAL) MONTH AMOUNT AS Per AO AMOUNT Relevant To AY 2013-14 AMOUNT AS Per Books DIFF. REMARKS-AS PER ACCOUNT BOOKS DEC 2011DEC 2012 551450 413588 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash receipts from these hospitals and all the payments are by cheques and rather on account of non-recovering of amount, we have to wright off the amount due from such hospitals as bad debts, which is very clear from our rejoinder and our earlier submission The Department has not been able to point out cash receipts outside the books of accounts, if any, in spite of this, we hereby make a lump-sum offer of ₹ 6 lakh on account of the above and, thus, the total offer is as under: AY Offer now made on account of 3 hospitals 2010-11 Nil 2011-12 2,00,000 2012-13 2,00,000 2014-15 6,00,000 14.3.2 In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the above offer is being made in the spirit of settlement and to avoid any protracted proceedings and the applicant has cooperated with the Settlement Commission during the course of various hearing and it is very humbly requested that the settlement be made by including the above said addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
